Irresponsible owners such as the one in question do NOT deserve to get their APBT back.....or any dog for that matter. It's "innocent" owners such as herself that are causing bans to be in place all over the country.

Save the dog? Maybe. But the dog should in NO WAY go back to the owner or anyone closely related to the owner.

Miakoda wrote:Irresponsible owners such as the one in question do NOT deserve to get their APBT back.....or any dog for that matter. It's "innocent" owners such as herself that are causing bans to be in place all over the country.

Save the dog? Maybe. But the dog should in NO WAY go back to the owner or anyone closely related to the owner.

I want to paste here the reasons I wrote (on another board) why I feel the way I do in this situation. The quotes were exact statements taken off the 911 board in which this whole situation is being spelled out on & I just used them & responded to them.

She also knows that Knuckles' clownish way of "playing" is to run up to people and make a game of chasing them if they run from her. Unfortunately for Knuckles, this style of play is what landed her in jail.

But who is to honestly believe that? For one, my dogs don't chase people & if I were being chased by a dog, the last thing on my mind would be that it was innocently wanting to play. Since the people being rushed at & chased didn't "understand" the dog's personality, are we to dismiss their feelings of fear?

was handed down a long list of conditions she would have to meet in order to spare Knuckles' life.Tiffany complied with all the conditions (including building a roofed kennel in her backyard) but one: Purchasing the required $100,000 liability insurance.

So after having her dog run loose chasing people down, she refused to comply with the laws required in order for her to safely keep her dog. No excuses for that one. I cannot defend someone who refuses to do something b/c they say they "can't". If she cannot get proper liablity home owner's insurance for her dog, then she doesn't need the dog. Again, if you cannot properly take care of your animal, then you shouldn't have one. State Farm provides us with homeowner's insurance knowing what breed of dog we own, & were more than happy to provide us with a $100,000 policy....all for an extra $21 a year more than that of the basic liability policy.

Yes - it a sad situation for the dog but that didn't seem right either. To expect others to step up when you failed THE DOG yourself.

The thing is, most laws are stated that a dog can be declared POTENTIALLY dangerous (do we know for sure if it's DANGEROUS or Potentially Dangerous?) if it "approaches in an apparent attitude or manner of attack". And I would expect anyone being chased by a dog would feel they are about to be bitten. oops, here's the code for WA state re: potentially dangerous...

(1) "Potentially dangerous dog" means any dog that when unprovoked: (a) Inflicts bites on a human or a domestic animal either on public or private property, or (b) chases or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, or any dog with a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury, or to cause injury or otherwise to threaten the safety of humans or domestic animals.

Now, DANGEROUS is:

(2) "Dangerous dog" means any dog that (a) inflicts severe injury on a human being without provocation on public or private property, (b) kills a domestic animal without provocation while the dog is off the owner's property, or (c) has been previously found to be potentially dangerous because of injury inflicted on a human, the owner having received notice of such and the dog again aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans.

And...how can any outside party determine, via emails and phone calls, what happened? They're going to be getting a biased story for sure...unless they go there and investigate both sides.

And so it was, when on March 18, 2006 -- nearly a year after the first incident and while Tiffany was out house searching -- that Knuckles chanced to get loose again

"Accident" number 2.

And again, Knuckles saw some neighbors and ran to them. The neighbors, not knowing Knuckles, panicked

If someone's 120lb German Shepherd was charging you, you could honestly say you'd stand there & be ready to play?

Knuckles was impounded. But this time, because Tiffany had forgotten to notify Animal Control that she'd termporarily moved Knuckles to her brother's house, the relatively minor omission was declared a violation of the year-old court conditions and so Animal Control decided to make an example of her, refusing to release Knuckles to her pending a hearing to determine if Knuckles was a "dangerous" dog.

Minor though it might be, she AGAIN violated the court's conditions on which she could safely keep her dog, thereby knowingly put herself & her dog in this position. I cannot stand behind people who aren't responsible & do not feel they have to follow the rules.

Like I said earlier, I suggest relocating the dog (like another state) into a reputable pit bull rescue where she can be fostered & temperament tested before possibly being put up for adoption. But for her owner's selfish acts of not following the rules b/c she "accidentally forgot", she shouldn't be allowed to own another dog for quite some time....& NEVER again own a pit bull. JMO.

PS--I'm trying to help save the breed & protect responsible owners with great dogs. I cannot possibly put my own dogs lives on the line to help defend yet another irrepsonsible owner, who solely put her dog in this position.

The thing what I don't get is wanting "visitation". To a dog, it just is more stressful to see their owner.
Believe it or not most dogs settle in quite nicely, even if stressed the first few days, to a shelter routine.
It's more distressing to the people involved by far, and I understand them wanting to see the dog, but it's not even feasible and I would rarely let anyone visit their dog at the shelter. The owner leaves and it's almost worse for the dog then.
Because the shelter shouldn't be equated, in the dog's mind, with the owner.
If that makes sense...
I think owners want to see for themselves the dog isn't falling apart, but they also want to believe the dog WILL fall apart when at the shelter.

msvette2u wrote:The thing what I don't get is wanting "visitation". To a dog, it just is more stressful to see their owner. Believe it or not most dogs settle in quite nicely, even if stressed the first few days, to a shelter routine. It's more distressing to the people involved by far, and I understand them wanting to see the dog, but it's not even feasible and I would rarely let anyone visit their dog at the shelter. The owner leaves and it's almost worse for the dog then. Because the shelter shouldn't be equated, in the dog's mind, with the owner. If that makes sense...I think owners want to see for themselves the dog isn't falling apart, but they also want to believe the dog WILL fall apart when at the shelter.

Tiffiny wrote me with all the documentations and asked for my help. I don't know the American Laws and sent her to a friend of mine in her own state to advise her.
She came across as very open and honest and I believe all that she said.
Here, if a dog is on a distroy order, it does not go outside for walks or get fresh air. It's stuck in a small cage and that's it.
Tiffiny in no way seemed like a irresponsible owner. She has to young kids that Knuckles adores and plays with 'gently'.
Accidents happen, so how can anyone claim she is an irresponsible owner?
I don't understand. We are here to HELP the bullies and if you don't want to donanate fine, but at least can't you sign the petition to keep Knuckes alive?
I thought this whole point was saving dogs, not debating if the owner is neglegent or not.
Here in Ontario, there are two unaltered bullies, no muzzles and certainly not Grandfathered, righ in my complex. Yes, I'm angry with the owners as they have no excuse as I gave them all the information of the Ontario Pit bull Ban and requirements, as well as the London City Bylaws regarding Pit bulls.
Still they walk their dogs as if they didn't care. I will NOT call ACC on them as it's not the dogs fault they have irresponsible owners and the dogs will be destroyed.
But Tiff isn't one of these kind of owners.
From lack of socialization from our ban, do you know how this has effected Shasta? She was always calm, mannerly and sociable. Now every time she see's a dog, she barks for them to come see her. With the big face muzzle on, dog owners walk a totally different direction seeing it as aggression. This ban is hurting dogs and owners alike.
I have nothing but compassion for Tiffney and Knuclkles and I'd like to see him freed. I don't have money being on a disability pension, but I did sign the petion and put the banners in my blog and about to put one on my home page in a few minutes. Where's the compassion for Knuckles even if you don't agree with Tiffeny, although you don't know her whole story. This is about 'SAVING A BULLY FROM DEATH!!!'
Not yelling, just trying to make a point.

Although this thread wasn't really intended to debate guilt or innocence or whatever, it was stated that there wasn't just ONE mistake but many. Those mistakes were compounded by the owners inability or unwillingness to follow the guidelines in place to be able to keep a pit bull.
The dog may be innocent but the owner was negligent in a number of ways. Now her dog's paying. That's not right, for the dog's sake but I have to agree with the others who've posted, the owner was negligent, the dog is an accident waiting to happen in her care, and this has aggravated the problems already facing pit bulls.